Monday, September 21, 2015

I just powered up Mario style (I'll just leave it at that) and I started really thinking about stuff when a thought struck me and I want to share it here and ask if I am on to something or have actually crossed a line and become an actual misogynist.

Basically, in a lot of domestic violence cases, the violence is both ways. I am assuming we agree that in most cases, the man who does hit the woman first does so not literally for no reason (like, woman these eggs are overcooked *bam*); it's not the fucking 1850's, alright? It's usually during an argument. Heated argument. And what do women do during arguments? Insult. Demean. Chastise. Belittle. Provoke. Threaten. Mock.

Insult. Demean. Chastise. Belittle. Provoke. Threaten. Mock.......wait, if a man did that to a woman in their relationship, wouldn't people say that man was an emotional abuser? So isn't what these women are doing actually emotional abuse? Now, you might say that hitting is not justified as a response. I mean, it's HITTING, right? The thing is though, and this where I may lose people, say you slap someone in the face. What actually happens? Their face stings. They may feel afraid. Or enraged. Or ashamed. What's the person being emotionally abused feeling? They may feel afraid. Or enraged. Or ashamed.*

The only real difference is the stinging face, right? So you can do all that shit to people and it's okay, just don't make their face sting?

But how do you stop someone who won't stop emotionally abusing you? What if it went on and on and on? They followed you from room to room? Just refusing to leave you alone. Why can't you make their face hurt for a minute to make them stop? Are you just supposed to take it? Leave your own house? And why is she being portrayed as an innocent victim? That sounds to me like discrimination in favour of women to me.

I'm not saying it's okay to hit a wom- oh wait, I guess I am?

Am I?

Fuck...

But am I right?

*There`s a difference between thinking things out/asking question and defending or promoting something, so save the over the top angry comments/accusations, etc. I've never hit a female and I really couldn't see myself doing so despite what I am saying. I'm not much of a fan of hitting anybody; what I am a fan of however, is dissecting common ideas and logic testing them.

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Rape culture isn't real. There, I said it. It's an incorrect idea perpetrated by radical feminists and has no factual basis in reality. It traces right back to a self-reporting study by Mary Koss for Ms Magazine that gave us the bogus 1 in 4 figures (ie 1 in 4 women will be raped) feminists continue to cite. The truth is, 73% of the women she identified as victims did not believe they’d been raped or sexually assaulted. Additionally, 43% of the people she identified as victims went on to date their “attackers”. She used definitions of rape that were not even remotely rape but then included them all under the umbrella of rape.

The results of a similar survey for men using overly loose definitions of rape as used in the study cited above which was released a while back found that almost half of school-aged boys and men were raped (95% of their rapists being women). Now, of course, this is utter nonsense, but what people need to understand is that this is the EXACT type of nonsense that gave us the 1 in 4 women stat. Overly loose definitions of rape.

What we do know is that rape is NOT a gendered crime. Men and women are raped in the US about equally, and quite possibly is the case throughout western society. Most people do not know this because Koss and other feminists saw to it to have the CDC and FBI classify male rape victims into a completely different category of sexual violence. Therefore male victims of rape aren't included in govt rape statistics. When you include male victims of rape that the govt lists in the "forced to penetrate" category, the figures are almost identical.

One of the most annoying way the statistics are used to mislead is the stats they quote with respect to the number of accusations that result in prosecution. They will say something like "only 2 in 9 are prosecuted!!!" and then draw the conclusion that the cops and attorneys don't take rape that seriously. That drives me NUTS. Rape, by its very nature, is often a 'he said she said' type of crime aka my word against yours crime (two people alone in a room, etc). Those types of crimes are hard to prosecute because of the need to establish guilt beyond a measure of reasonable doubt. These cases are often hard to win in court so they don't go forward. It's not sexism against women, it's a consequence of the nature of the crime. Women don't need to educate men. What they need is to think more rationally.

Now, because of this "rape culture" bs, comedians are being targeted. Feminists say that rape jokes add to the "rape culture" but have absolutely zero evidence that a single rape has ever been committed because someone saw a comedy show, heard a rape joke and went "yeah, rape is pretty cool- I'ma go rape someone tonight." The people who rape are ALREADY WILLING TO RAPE. Jokes make no difference whatsoever. The other part of it that I despise is the "my feelings are hurt, someone do something about it" aspect of it, as well as the fact that people are laughing and enjoying a show, so who the fuck made you the authority and the one to stop the show because you have an inner boo boo (usually not even on behalf of yourself but perceived victims who are probably not even in attendance). If you don't like the show, LEAVE. Who on science's green earth taught you that it's reasonable to demand a group of people stop enjoying their chosen entertainment because it makes you feel funny inside?

It's time we stop unfairly villianizing men in this society.

Sources:

Nara Schoenberg and Sam Roe, “The Making of an Epidemic,” Toledo Blade, October 10, 1993

Neil Gilbert, “Examining the Facts: Advocacy Research Overstates the Incidence of Data and Acquaintance Rape,” Current Controversies in Family Violence eds.

Campus Crime and Security, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1997. Note: According to this study, campus police reported 1,310 forcible sex offenses on U.S. campuses in one year. That works out to an average of fewer than one rape per campus.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Poll a random group of one hundred people and you'll probably find at least thirty who believe in ghosts/spirits. A further ten of those people will likely believe in hauntings. I do not count myself a member of this group of people. There are just too many problems with the idea for me to subscribe to it (aside from the obvious lack of evidence). For one thing, this planet has been home to roughly a thousand trillion deaths over billions of years. Yes, billions, not six thousand. Sorry, Jesus freaks. Yet there seem to be maybe a hundred and twenty seven ghosts in existence and for some reason most of them lived in the Victorian era. Where are the Neanderthal ghosts? The Viking ghosts? Or more importantly, the dinosaur ghosts? I mean, what, only humans come back as ghosts? Humans from the Victorian era? If ghosts were real they would be everywhere.

Not only would they be everywhere, if they had the ability to haunt life would be absolutely fucking unbearable because everything would be haunted.

Get it together people. You can rest easy tonight, okay? There are no ghost pterodactyls flying around your bed.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Anyone who has read the seminal dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell will be familiar with the concept of thoughtcrime, which is quite simply illegal thought. In Orwell's portrayl of a dystopian future, the totalitarian government surveys the thoughts of the people via 'psychology surveillance' (should have been called psychological surveillance imo).

Contrary to popular belief, however, the concept of thoughtcrime is not original to Orwell and his great piece of fiction. The concept actually appears in another piece of fiction, about 2000 YEARS before the release of his novel!

Thursday, September 27, 2012

In a discussion on the inclusion of JFK in the upcoming Call of Duty game (something I knew/know nothing about, since I don't follow the games, but this discussion was being had by others and I chimed in) the following ridiculous, frustrating, saddening, angering exchange (more like an ownage session) (with someone I have never spoken to online prior to this) was had:

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Anyone else find it odd that there are apparently thousands of gods in existence, each with differing ideologies, origins, desires and goals, yet the one thing they all seem to share in common with 100% inclusiveness is an inclination to be completely undetectable...

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Believe in a god? Have proof of said god's existence? I'd like to hear it.

Anyone who happens to be reading this and think they have proof of the existence of their god of choice, let me have it.

However, if I may, before you reveal it, I'd like to set 3 rules.

1)Arguments from incredulity are fallacious and I will not accept them. For example, saying "Look at the world around you. sIt's too "perfect." It had to be created, therefore, there's obviously a God." This is a logical fallacy. Just because you cannot fathom any other explanation does not mean there isn't one. All you are really saying is "I don't know and I am inserting "god." There are MANY other possible explanations. Some more plausible than others. So please refrain from using this as "proof." I will not accept it.

2) These also are not valid and will not be accepted as "proof:"

-You can't prove there's not a god!

-Without god, people have no reason to be moral.

The first one is just stupid burden shifting (and still not proof anyways) and the scond one is just a bare assertion fallacy (and wrong) (and still not proof).

3) For people who believe in the "one true god....." whatever proof you do have, ask yourself, could that same proof not be utilized by someone else who believes in a different god? If so, how can it be valid for you and not them? Which means......by your logic, their god must exist as well. For example, if you say "God speaks to me" and this is your proof, fine. However, if someone who believes in one of the 3799 other propsed gods says that as well, would that not be proof that their god also exists?

Okay, so if you think you have proof of god's existence and it does not consist of one of the above disqualified lines of reasoning, please do share it! Keep in mind, however, that this is for people who say they actually have proof, not for those who say it's based on faith.

Friday, December 16, 2011

December 16th, 2011: The day the world lost one of its most prolific social, cultural and political analysts, and a voice of reason that, if the tides of time are fair and true, shall echo down throughout the ages and resonate with all who hear it.

The thesis of said blog post basically being that the christian god punishes every sin in the same way, even though (apparently) not all sins are equal. I ask in the video/blog if this is fair, and whether or not we are more just than god, since "in the criminal justice system, differing crimes are given differing sentences. But not in hell. An atheist gets the same treatment as a serial rapist or a murderer. Hell, under this system, I would get the same punishment as Hitler. Is this fair? Is this behaviour indicitave of an omnibenevolent being?'

Thursday, July 21, 2011

So, if an atheist were to start a religion, what would this religion be like?

This is a question I have been thinking about on and off for some time. Sure, this wouldn't ever really happen, as a religion without a god is not a religion, but it's an interesting thought experiment that I think brings up some valid points and demonstrates how lacking the existing religions really are (not that there are not good ideas contained within; there are). So, what would my religion be like, exactly, if I were to create one?

Monday, June 27, 2011

If no, why not? Is it that no one chooses to sin because heaven is so amazingly awesome that they have no need/desire to commit evil? If there is free will in heaven, but no one acts on it (to do sin/bad works) because heaven is so amazing, then that means god has the ability to create a perfect place devoid of evil, without violating our free will. If that's the case, why was Earth not created in such a way, or what's the point of Earth at all?

If yes, bad deeds are done in heaven, then doesn't that mean heaven is, well, no longer heavenly? Some might say that the difference would still be that in heaven, you're with god, but if god is omnipresent, he's with you on Earth anyways (usually in people's aortic valves, if the christians are correct) which means that heaven is no different than Earth (unless of course you do not attribute omnipresence to god). Also, what happens to those people who do sin in heaven? Do they get sent to hell?

If no, there is no free will in heaven, then that means god has no qualms with us being devoid of free will, which means the free will defense for the problem of evil goes bye bye, since god clearly has no problem violating our free will.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Feeling as Gleeful as I want to be? Think that we're looking at a whole new era?Think again.The sad thing is, rather than realize their errors, owning up to them and moving forward, many of Camping's followers will, due to the dissonance they will experience (cognitively), actually strengthen their resolve and adherence to their ideology.Especially those who made public proclamations, as it has been shown that a public statement of belief lessens the willingness to retract said belief/heightens the threshold for evidenciary based retraction.So, as much as we may be laughing and in our heart of hearts hoping that this will finally be the catalyst to a more rational future....it's not going to happen :(

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

There are some seemingly well constructed arguments for the existence of god utilized by apologists in their quest to rationalize their religious beliefs. The three classic apologist arguments are the:

1) Teleological Argument (Argument from Design)

-Basically, there exists order and complexity within nature, and order and complexity, ie, design, is contingent upon a mind. This mind is god.

2) Cosmological Argument

-Basically, finite entities must have a cause. You cannot have an infinite causal loop/chain, in which something created something created something ad infinitum. There must be a first cause. This first cause, by definition, is not contingent and is not an effect.

3) Ontological Argument

-Basically, and laughably, it asserts, a priori, that if you can conceive of the greatest possible entity, then said entity must exist, since existence is superior to nonexistence.

Friday, March 11, 2011

Here are a collection of 9 reasons to help the religious understand why we don't buy into their belief systems. This is neither all encompassing nor to be taken as some finalized mission statement. I wouldn't consider this the most compelling list I could write, but it hits a fair number of things and does a few of them decently.

Friday, March 4, 2011

In this blog I will share with you my story. Why I am an atheist (although the answer is rather simple), how those around me handle(d) it, and the beliefs of those I associate with. I will frame it as an interview (why....I dunno). So, let's begin, shall we?

Monday, November 29, 2010

Here are my thoughts on abortion. As you will see, my position is not solidifed (the general slant of it is, the details are not) and the issue is, for me, a difficult one, but not for the usual reasons. The difficulty for me lies in the fact that formulating an opinion which is not borne (pun intended?) of assertions based on arbitrary delineations is rather difficult.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Okay, it's rant time. Here's an article from The Star.com detailing the anti global warming stance held by Republican (of couse) U.S. Representative John Shimkus, and his reasons for holding an antiscientific position (article first, then the rant):

U.S. Representative John Shimkus, possible future chairman of the Congressional committee that deals with energy and its attendant environmental concerns, believes that climate change should not concern us since God has already promised not to destroy the Earth.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Robert The (Devil) Doll: A Case of Tourism Motivated Fabrication and Superstitious Irrationality

Robert the doll is a supposedly haunted/possessed doll that resides in Key West, Florida. If you want to read the whole spooky tale, you can do so HERE.

So, legend has it that this cursed doll is malevolent, and can speak, move around, and bring harm to people. Many people believe this, and the stories that have propagated about this doll over the years are of course varied and delightfully spooky.....and of course, untrue.

Here's some information from someone who has some experience with Robert the Devil Doll (written in her words, so any grammatical or spelling errors are hers, not mine, as is any credit given for discoveries or insights....I'm just reposting it):

Monday, October 4, 2010

Here's a quote from an article I am reading regarding an epidemic of whooping cough in California, largely fueled by the incidence of adults refusing vaccines for both themselves and their children. Remember, the kids not being vaccinated is not the only hazard. The people around them not being vaccinated leads them to contracting diseases as well. If the people around you are all vaccinated, you won't be contracting anything. If, however, they listen to Jenny McDumbass and don't get vaccinated, they become potential carriers, and the most susceptible, infants (as well as immunocomprimised adults, such as myself, and the elderly) become potential recipients of this deadly gift borne of ignorance.

GET VACCINATED AND GET YOUR KIDS VACCINATED!

Anyways, here is the quote:

Pertussis once was widespread in California, reaching a peak of 21,344 cases in 1941. But a full-scale vaccination program reduced the incidence dramatically. Reported cases hit a low of 75 in 1976, but the disease has been creeping up since then. During the last outbreak year of 2005, there were 3,182 cases. So far this year there have been 1,496 cases.

From 21,344 to 75. SEVENTY FIVE!

And now?

Back to the thousands, and climbing. This isn't isolated, either. There have been many diseases making a comeback as of late, as herd immunity in various communities is being lost due to people opting out of vaccinations. Your 'personal choice' is KILLING PEOPLE.

What the hell can we do to combat the spread of all this ignorant misinformation that's permeating the culture as of late? Anti-Evolution, anti-vaccination, anti-global warming, 9/11, banking, nwo, moon, cancer cure etc conspiracies, etc. It's getting out of control thanks to the internet, the lapses in education, and movies like Zeitgesist. And it goes beyond mere idealogical differences. It threatens our actual futures. Yes, no hyperbole. It threatens our very future.

So, really, anyone....what the FUCK can we do? I have but a couple of ideas, and none of them alone are enough to combat this, but here they are, as they are at least a hypothetical start:

Teach critical thinking in schools, stating in elementary/grade school. Teach kids HOW to think in addition to WHAT to think.

Science needs like...PR people or something. Seriously, there needs to be someone between the science and the people who can clear things up for th emasses and defend the scientists and the science when it/they are attacked by morons with a camera. If celebrities and Coca Cola can have PR people, shouldn't one of the most important things in the fucking WORLD have them? (Yes, science numbnuts).

Sunday, August 1, 2010

I am not sure if pointing out simple logical deductions to a retard (sorry) is considered pwning as much as it is beating up on a hapless retard (sorry again), but this hapless retard (sorry, really) is manipulating people into believing lies, making them feel guilty for being human, and making big money off of doing so, so fuck it, it's a pwning.

So, on to what I will, perhaps tentatively (you decide!) call Ray Comfort being PWND.